9/11 truth movement debunked

Among the quite salient points is that for the WTC to have been implanted with bombs, thousands of pounds of explosives would have to have been put in walls that had been ripped apart then repaired while none of the thousands of workers in the buildings noticed anything. There’s more such reality in the report too.

The Wrong Side Of Capitalism, a truly wondrous blog, slaps the truth movement upside the head.

Your theories are not, in fact, so shocking that our squaresville minds can’t handle them. Indeed, precisely the opposite is the case. The problem with your theories is that they are far too banal. Oooh, the US government killed civilians for political purposes; how unexpected. Why go to all the trouble of constructing a conspiracy theory to uncover a crime that would be almost insignificant compared to the ones the government doesn’t even bother to deny? Please get back to me when you’ve constructed a theory blaming 9/11 on a group of rogue templars out to hide the secret alien hatcheries under Manhattan.

The neocons want to invade Iran. That’s a great big honking conspiracy that’s right out in the open. Tens of thousands will die if it happens. There’s plenty of real conspiracies, no need to make them up.


  1. Why has the ill-thought out comment above, been described as ‘de-bunking’ the
    snowballing 9/11 truth movement, when it is nothing but school playground name-calling?
    When I first became aware of these allegations, I found them to be so shocking that
    I couln’t entertain the notion they were in any way true.
    That was until I started doing the research into the various theories and when I saw the evidence
    it was logical and plain to see that 9/11 was indeed an INSIDE JOB!

  2. Great satire, Scoobydoo!

  3. Even the official story is a conspiracy theory, so we are all conspiracy theorists now. I count four such theories; 1 is the official story (fully discredited); 2 is the official story plus massive Bushite incompetence; 3 is passive complicity – they looked the other way and planned exploitation of the event – and 4 is active treason. My own belief peaks in #3, but the boundaries are fuzzy. At what point does incompetence become complicity? At what point does complicity become active treason? So my real expectation is that the real story – assuming we ever get it – will be s messy combination of 2,3 and 4. Perhaps incompetence by Bush himself, complicity by (say) Feith and Perle, and active treason by Cheney. For one thing, why did he order the stand-down?

Comments are closed.